Does one *really* need a calorie deficit to lose weight?

[shipo]

Hey gang, I've been using a Fitbit Surge for about a year now and am just finding about these forums (I sorta knew they existed, but never paid much attention to them), and have seen numerous references to a calorie deficit diet as a requirement for losing weight.  So, as the title of this thread suggests, I'm curious as to whether this is truly a physiological requirement, or just a basic suggestion.

Why do I ask?  Personal experience suggests something contrary to the conventional "calorie deficit" wisdom; consider the following.

I am what may well be termed an "off again/on again" runner (more off than on).  It seems like changing life dynamics, be it job, family, injury, whatever, has always managed to muck things up with my running just when things were going well, and whenever stuff happened, I'd quit running for years at a time.  Case in point, I broke my leg in 2003 and it took until 2009 before I found a formula which allowed me to start running again pain free.  I ran into 2010 and then got involved in a work project which required 80+ hours of work per week, plus a significant commute, and that lasted until April of 2013.  In the 2003-2009 time period I gained about 100 pounds, in 2009 and 2010 I lost maybe half of that weight through running, only to gain it all back by 2013.

I told y'all that to tell you this; I started running again in April of 2013 when I was 250+ (don't know how much on the plus side I was because I was too afraid to get on the scale); at the time I was a month shy of 56, had a 40+ inch waist, and needless to say, that much weight on my 5' 8" frame was, ummm, pretty non-attractive.  I gradually ramped up my running, always on dirt or grass to avoid the typical injuries associated with running/weight/frequency, and by August I was running over 200 miles per month.  The thing is, I was eating everything in sight, literally, like to the tune of 5,000-6,000 calories per day (against what my Fitbit Surge guesstimates, to be a calorie burn in the 4,500-5,000 per day range); and yet, I was losing weight quite rapidly.  By September I was down under the 200 pound threshold for the first time in over a decade, and by November I was down to 190.

So, my question is, with enough physical activity, does it make sense one can lose weight even when he/she is consuming significantly more calories than one is burning?

[bcalvanese]

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

---

He's not going to do this, and even if he does he will probably fudge the numbers.

[OCDOC]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

---

He's not going to do this, and even if he does he will probably fudge the numbers.

---

Argumentum ad Hominem...nice thread kill....  😞

[shipo]

bcalvanese wrote:

How do you even know what my mode is?

I see, so you can presume my PC/cardiologist is a quack, but when I pose a question regarding what your mode might be you take offence.

bcalvanese wrote:

Weather [sic] you are doing it on purpose or not... you are miscalculating one or the other or both.

The burn rate posted was calculated by my Fitbit Surge based upon distance and heart rate; if you want to claim it is incorrect, go for it. As for me under reporting what I ate during that six month period three years ago, nope, sorry, if anything it was conservative on the low side.

bcalvanese wrote:

There are 2 things a person must do to maintain a healthy body weight.

1. get the exercise recommended by the CDC
2. Eat a healthy well rounded diet, and avoid over eating.

The recommendations made by the CDC are gross generalizations based upon an average individual; it is my assertion folks at either end of the spectrum, outliers if you will, do not fit the CDC model.

The thing is, all of this 3,500 calorie deficit per pound of weight lost mumbo-jumbo, while probably reasonably accurate for an average individual, is no more accurate than the absurd BMI charts, and the equally ridiculous heart rate charts (and their associated workout zoned). All three may be a reasonable guide for a normal relatively sedentary American, they are all significantly flawed the further you get from the norm.

For my part, I would love to see some sanity brought into the discussion instead of these hard and fast rules which people cling to as truths regardless of whether they are true or whether they work for any given individual.

As a closing note, there are several questions I've asked which have been conveniently unanswered by the collective here which, if answered honestly, would most likely change the tone of the discussion. Unfortunately it seems said questions are inconveniently worded in such a way as to inhibit my critics from answering them. You can't blame me for trying no more than you can blame me for walking one of my horses to the water trough only to have him walk away.

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

---

He's not going to do this, and even if he does he will probably fudge the numbers.

---

Pretty funny.  The thing is, I lost the weight three years ago; what do you expect me to do, stop working out, eat like a pig, gain the weight back; all so I can lose it again?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

[bcalvanese]

[shipo]

---

@OCDOC wrote:

@shipo  I doubt the skinny/fit 'big eaters' poop out a bunch of calories. There may be some dragged along with fiber, but not enough to matter.

---

So I was all set to walk away from this thread and chalk it up to a lost cause; but the above comment kinda stuck in my head.  While I was out for a quick lunch time run this afternoon it connected with a number of other remembered discussions I've had with runners over the years regarding pooping.  There have been two basic themes to said discussions:

1. When in the midst of a regular running program, it is not uncommon to have three or more bowel movements throughout the day.
2. Following a layoff of at least a week or two from running due to injury, life circumstances, whatever, it is not uncommon to have numerous and very large movements during the first few days of running again.

With the above in mind, I did a quick search on the internet for information on how a runner's digestion may differ from other folks and came up with the following quote:

According to a 2001 review in the journal, "Gut," regular physical exercise, such as running, can reduce the risk of colon cancer. Physically active men and women have a 50-percent lower risk for developing cancers of the digestive system, independent of other factors such as diet and weight. Researchers believe that one of the ways exercise reduces cancer risk is by speeding up the movement of waste products through the digestive tract. This limits the time that the lining of the colon is in contact with the cancer-causing contents of waste. So get moving to keep that digestive tract moving too.

Source: http://woman.thenest.com/can-running-digestive-system-15258.html

I had made the assumption high activity levels were in play here, however, maybe it was simply all of my running which caused things to move through my system before they were fully processed. 

[OCDOC]

@shipo

Interesting find. It would appear that vigorous exercise may or may not decrease nutrient absorption, based on the rapid transit time.

From the original article you cite (Gut.48.3.435😞

"Findings for the effect of exercise on absorption and acid secretion are inconsistent: both a decrease or no change in absorption" 57

However, here's the abstract from cited article (57..Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise [1994, 26(3):267-280])..italics mine.

"Formulation of oral rehydration solutions (ORS) is reviewed in the context of methods for measuring absorption of water and component substrates, transport mechanisms of substrates and water, requirements of the athlete, and effects of exercise on absorption. The triple lumen tube intubation perfusion method is the optimal technique for obtaining absorption data from the human small intestine during rest and exercise. Factors that must be considered when interpreting absorption data obtained by this technique include the role of the mixing segment in altering composition of the infused solution, defining optimal segment length, effects of ORS osmolality, and absorption of "nonabsorbed" indicators. Absorption data are applicable only to the test segment and may lack relevance to ORS transport proximal and distal to the test segment. Absorption rate of an ORS measured by perfusion may not correlate with absorption rate following ingestion. Transport of water, electrolytes, carbohydrates, and other solutes including glutamine and amino acids is considered in relation to ORS formulation. Factors affecting absorption of an ORS including the unstirred layer, motility, intestinal blood flow, and maximal absorptive capacity of the alimentary tract are considered. Exercise per se at 30-70% VO2max for 60-90 min probably has minimal effects in limiting absorption of an ORS. Consideration relevant to supplying needs of the athlete during prolonged exercise in relation for ORS formulation are discussed."

So exercise doesn't decrease absorption in this study. I also doubt that other nutrients (ie non-ORS) can navigate the 22 feet of small bowel without being absorbed (unless you have Salmonella-level explosive diarrhea and malabsorption).

Nice continuation, but the evidence doesn't support the 'pooping nutrients' idea 🙂  Rob

[shipo]

---

@OCDOC wrote:

@shipo

Interesting find. It would appear that vigorous exercise may or may not decrease nutrient absorption, based on the rapid transit time.

...

Nice continuation, but the evidence doesn't support the 'pooping nutrients' idea 🙂  Rob

---

Good information, thanks.

So, I'm an engineer and not in the field of medical research.  With that said, I have a few comments about the information related in the previous two posts:

• To my way of thinking, the faster the transit time through the small intestine, the lower the absorption rate.  The harder/more complicated a compound is to absorb, the lower the absorption rate.
• Supporting the information you cited, everything I came across seems to indicate fluids consumed are the first/easiest to absorb, and rapid transit doesn't really affect the absorption rate.
• I ran across numerous articles and studies on the phenomena of "runner trots", things transiting the digestive system way too quickly and/or way too inconveniently.
• While aggressive exercise (i.e. exercise other than running) in and of itself may not be enough to generate the necessary "shaking and stirring" of the digestive tract to accelerate the transit time, there is plenty of evidence suggesting running does cause more acceleration than most (all?) other sustained vigorous forms of exercise.

[SunsetRunner]

I have to categorically disagree with you. You will not lose weight if your body absorbes more calories than it burns. The "devil in the details" that was mentioned earlier is in getting a true and accurate measure of how many calories were actually absorbed let alone eaten, these are all guesstimates. The posted "nutriational" information on packages are a statistical average at best. Then there is the other side that again is a best guess at what an average persons body would burn in a given activity.
The only way to even come close to getting a truer picture of how many calories a person is burning is to be hooked up to a machine that measures your oxygen intake and compares it to the carbon dioxide expelled along with the unused oxygen. The manner in which the body used the oxygen and converted it to carbon dioxide can also have an effect on the number of calories burned so monitoring the blood for lactate can assist in reducing the error but it is all still a best guess. What a persons basal metabolic rate is for the rest of the day is again just an educated guess. There are always going to be people who don't fit the mold.
I suspect that the currently used method of calculating a persons basal metabolic rate is about as accurate as the notion that a persons maximum heart rate is 220-age. I am proof positive that doesn't work, by that calculation my max heart rate should be 170 but mine is more like 190-195, a whole 20-25 percent higher.
So although it may seem like some people are consuming more calories than they are burning and still lose weight I would suggest that it is due to errors on both sides of the equation and that ultimately they are still burning more than they are absorbing. The human body is a wonderfully complex machine and although we understand some of the basic mechanisms getting a true picture of how it all works together and reducing it to a simple set of equations that apply uniformly to everyone is in my opinion impossible.
I would be willing to agree that there are individuals who could eat the set number of calories as described by nutritional labels in balance or even in excess of what their calculated expenditure is and still loose weight.
I would be equally willing to accept that there are individuals for who the complete opposite is true. i.e. They consume/absorbe fewer calories than they expend yet still gain weight.

[shipo]

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

[SunsetRunner]

Fair enough.
Although i haven't read all the posts there have been some interesting
posts on both sides of the discussions.
I like healthy debates.

Andrew Meyer

[BWright1175]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

---

---

Pretty funny.  The thing is, I lost the weight three years ago; what do you expect me to do, stop working out, eat like a pig, gain the weight back; all so I can lose it again?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

---

Please point out in my post (which you quoted, btw) where I even came close to implying that you should stop working out and gain all your weight back.

The numbers you gave in your second post here referenced the previous day, so we're talking about activity levels and calories that you burned vs consumed less than a month ago, not 3 years ago.

[shipo]

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

---

---

@BWright1175 wrote:

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

---

---

Pretty funny.  The thing is, I lost the weight three years ago; what do you expect me to do, stop working out, eat like a pig, gain the weight back; all so I can lose it again?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

---

Please point out in my post (which you quoted, btw) where I even came close to implying that you should stop working out and gain all your weight back.

The numbers you gave in your second post here referenced the previous day, so we're talking about activity levels and calories that you burned vs consumed less than a month ago, not 3 years ago.

---

While I am still doing roughly the same activity as I did three years ago when I lost the weight, I'm not currently in weight loss mode.  So, if you want a calorie by calorie account of what I ate back then, then I'll have to gain weight only to lose it again.

[Punkynn01]

The truth is...

It can vary from person to person.

Yes, for a person who is just starting out and has never tried to lose weight or has ever exercised,...if they simply count calories and stay at a deficit they should lose weight.  Adding exercise helps.  I was always told...
"If you want to look good in clothes diet...if you wanna look good out of your clothes, diet and exercise"

In other words...diet helps you to lose weight...add exercise and it helps to tighten everything up.  

Life is all about balance.  Many other things come in to play.  Age, genetics, health...all these and many other things can be barriers.  I have found that when I come to a roadblock in my journey I have to take a detour so to speak.  Try something new.  I am a runner...but when I start getting bored with things I will throw in a workout video or try an new class.  There are all kinds of classes that will allow you to try before you buy.  The first one is usually free. 

So I guess what I'm saying is...

No it's not always stay at a deficit and you will be guaranteed to lose weight.  Your body adapts.  You have to change things up when you see that something isn't working.  This is why people quit.  They don't realize this.  They see that what they are doing no longer works. Many will go wild and get crazy sore and not want to do it again.  Or, like I said, they will do really well till they hit that plateau.  

Consistancy is the key.  Commitment to doing something everyday to improve yourself.  exercise is exercise.  You don't have to run X amount of miles every day or kill yourself in a particular workout...you just have to do something and watch your calories. Your body goes through cycles.  You just have to wait for it to cycle back around.  

[SunsetRunner]

to lose weight your body needs to either absorb less calories than it needs or you need to burn those calories so that it is in deficit

but, just because you ate more calories than your body needs to maintain it's weight does not automatically mean you will gain weight

you body needs to actually absorb those calories to gain weight, you could eat 10000 calories, but if your body aborbs less than it needs to maintain it's weight, you will lose weight

i.e. if your body needs say 2000 calories to maintain your current weight, you then eat say 2100, but the body only absorbs 1900, although you ate more, you are still in calorie deficit, and given time if that continues, you will lose weight

which is why health magazines and weight loss websites etc tell you to eat, can't remember off the top of my head, lack of sleep.... beans? rice? basically food that the body takes time to digest, they fill you up, keep you full longer, and because the body can not digest it all, you end up at the end of the day in calorie deficit because you end up flushing the undigested food down the toilet

now without being too gross, how many times have you done a number 2 and see undigested food?

I don't know how true this is, but it makes sense and nearly everyone keeps telling me, do not got to bed/sleep shortly after eating, as when you sleep your body functions slows down, so your digestive rate slows down

what I would say to everyone as well is, look after your body, it is the only one you have, once you have destroyed it, it is game over, all those fried fast foods, cigs, booze etc, if only I knew what I knew now

[Punkynn01]

I have actually found truth, personally, in the going to bed hungry theory.  I know that when I stick to that I tend to see results on the scale.  

I know that most will tell you that if you stay in your calories to lose or in a deficit, you will lose no matter what time of the day you eat or finish eating.  BUT, there is some truth in the fact that your body does slow down when you sleep.  Your heart rate lowers.  I know mine does considerably.  I am a runner and my resting heart rate has dropped considerably since I started running and losing weight. When this happens you have to get your heart rate up more to lose more. So even though it is healthier because your heart is healthy and it doesn't have to work as hard...It kinda sucks because now you have to work somewhat to get your heart rate up.  It's almost like you have to warm up the engine and get it to that fat burning range.

For example.  I have noticed that my fitbit doesn't show me doing a 30 min workout when I do my 30 min workout tape.  It only shows me doing maybe 22-25 mins.  It used to be really close to that 30 min mark back when I was overweight and just starting out.  But, because I am healthier now it takes longer for my heart rate to get up before it registers it on the fitbit.   Yet I'm sure that those minutes aren't lost.  My body was still moving for that 5-8 minutes and burning calories.   

Again, the fitbit is a tool but there are other things that you have to consider,...like how your body processes food.  Are you really retaining all the calories that you are eating?  Everyone is different.  This is why it is so frustrating.  One person will react to a diet differently than another. If we were all the same then there would be only one kind of workout and one kind of diet.  We would all be overweight or all be skinny. 

[vsd]

Didn't read the entire thread but there are medical situations where you don't gain or lose based on calories in or out.  If you're hyperthyroid for instance, you can lose weight even if you're eating the same amount that you used to gain weight on.  There are also certain type of diabetes that would cause you not to gain weight even with increased eating. In addition,  there's the gastro diseases like crohn's disease or celiac.   Also on the more serious end there's certain types of cancers.

It sounds like the original poster is happy with the situation but it's odd enough that I'd at least want to rule out any underlying causes. I also think the poster was pretty vague about what he actually ate as no one really knows the calories for snacking continuously.  The obvious answer is that either the calories in are being overestimated or the calories burned are being underestimated. 

Either way, the stuff listed that he ate does not seem very healthy and I don't see that being good for the average person.  

[SunsetRunner]

eating just before going to bed is not a good idea, as your digestive system slows down

however, in regards to the topic, you could eat all you want, but if your body doesn't not digest it dones't matter

lets say your body needs 2000 calories to mantain it's weight, you eat 2500 calories, but the body only burns 1500 calories, you will lose weight

[Berripity]

Do you have a source for the claim that eating just before bed slows weight loss? That defies much of what I have read.

Also, in what instance could the body "not digest" 1000 calories?

Not trying to be snarky, but I dont understand what you mean. 

[Marcy]

---

@shipo wrote:

Sustaining 200 miles per month as well (I even threw in a 100+ mile week for good measure), albiet at a 150 calorie per mile burn rate, saw me shedding 70 pounds in six months while literally eating from dawn to getting in bed that night.  There is no way my burn rate was anywhere near as high as the number of calories I consumed.

---

Maybe you needed a good deworming. 🙂

Parasites are known to cause horses to have food absorption problems resulting in weight loss, Why not absorption disorders in people?